iLKke: Indeed. But what I meant is that the new folks need to get to know the old masters.

As Ra mentioned, back in the days "pixel art" was simple called "computer art" because that's the way it was. If you did art on computers you more or less had to do it "pixel art", because of the limitations of that times computers.

The term "pixel art" is a retronym, a new term invented to describe an old phenomena in comparison to a new version of that phenomena.

"Pixel art" is a method of using new technology to make something look like it was made with old technology.

Like, as an example, when i make c64 graphics, I don't say that I'm making pixel art for the c64. I simply say that I make graphics for the c64.

Back in the days people tried to make things look as good as possible on limited hardware. Now we have computers with much less limited hardware and we don't really have to use advanced manual techniques to make low resolutions and limited palettes look less limited than it really is. Instead we try to emulate the visual style that was a direct effect of the old and limited systems, for different reasons.

I grew up with old systems and when I started to make graphics (or "art", if you like) on those systems, I discovered works done by Ra, and others, and it BLEW MY MIND. I had no idea that one could make things look that amazing! It inspired me. It gave me confidence and motivation to learn. When i saw what was actually possible a whole new world opened up before me.

Without that amazing inspiration I would probably not have continued using computers to make art.

That is why I think it is importand to have stuff like this picture here. It is an important piece of history in digital art, especially in the history of pixel art. It is not just for the luls that they teach history of art in art schools. It is important.

Just a few of my thoughts on it. Now I have to continue on my c64 picture for X'2012 instead of ranting nonsense here.

Yeah, I see no reason why this is not in. The problem seems to be that the people who in the end approve things do not really have a good idea about, as ra stated, "computer art", back when people did stuff like this it was state of the art. Photoshop was not widely circulated and most computers could not handle more than 256 colours at once if that. Yes, this probably was made with "dirty" tools such as tint and similar things. I reckon it was either done in a late DPaint or Brilliance.

I see no reason why this should not be on here, esp since there are TONS of older submission in the gallery which would get rejected nowadays offhand. What this all comes down to is a failed implementation of a bad system to check what is and is not PA, which is pretty futile to begin with. This has pixel level detail, was made with pixel level detail in mind, and therefore should be on here. I have seen pretty much all of ra's pixel stuff and none of it looks like it was traced. Copied from existing photos or other art yes, but no scans or traces. And we have lots of copies in the galleries by others as well.